Jump to content

Mance Rayder violated guest rights!


Wolf's Bane

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, UnFit Finlay said:

That's not what Ned believes in AGOT

"Aerys Targaryen must have thought that his gods had answered his prayers when Lord Tywin Lannister appeared before the gates of King's Landing with an army twelve thousand strong, professing loyalty. So the mad king had ordered his last mad act. He had opened his city to the lions at the gate."

Well, Ned wasn't there when when Tywin arrived. But Jaime was, and this is what he tells us.

ASoS, Jaime V

“Ned Stark was racing south with Robert’s van, but my father’s forces reached the city first. Pycelle convinced the king that his Warden of the West had come to defend him, so he opened the gates. The one time he should have heeded Varys, and he ignored him. My father had held back from the war, brooding on all the wrongs Aerys had done him and determined that House Lannister should be on the winning side. The Trident decided him.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Well, Ned wasn't there when when Tywin arrived. But Jaime was, and this is what he tells us.

ASoS, Jaime V

“Ned Stark was racing south with Robert’s van, but my father’s forces reached the city first. Pycelle convinced the king that his Warden of the West had come to defend him, so he opened the gates. The one time he should have heeded Varys, and he ignored him. My father had held back from the war, brooding on all the wrongs Aerys had done him and determined that House Lannister should be on the winning side. The Trident decided him.”

This seems like a bit of an odd debate to me. I very much doubt Tywin simply turned up at KL and said nothing. Pycelle and Varys wouldn't have been arguing with Aerys about Tywin's intentions unless he had at least implied that he was there to help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

This seems like a bit of an odd debate to me. I very much doubt Tywin simply turned up at KL and said nothing. Pycelle and Varys wouldn't have been arguing with Aerys about Tywin's intentions unless he had at least implied that he was there to help.

If this seems like an odd debate to you you probably haven't been reading much around here. 

The poster I quoted made a comparison between the taking of Winterfell and RK, stating both were similar. I disagreed, and explained why. That's all. 

Tywin waited until the war was practically won. Then he turns up at KL before Ned arrives. He knows Aerys well, they were friends. How would he have implied he was there to help? Also, we know Pycelle convinced Aerys to open the gates against Varys' advice. We know Ned wasn't there yet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

If this seems like an odd debate to you you probably haven't been reading much around here. 

The poster I quoted made a comparison between the taking of Winterfell and RK, stating both were similar. I disagreed, and explained why. That's all. 

Tywin waited until the war was practically won. Then he turns up at KL before Ned arrives. He knows Aerys well, they were friends. How would he have implied he was there to help? Also, we know Pycelle convinced Aerys to open the gates against Varys' advice. We know Ned wasn't there yet. 

My point was that Aerys was convinced by Pycelle Tywin was there to help, there would have been some basis for that assumption, which would have been contradicted if Tywin just arrived but said nothing. I think it's safe to assume that at the very least he sent a message saying he was there to defend KL and the king. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Well, Ned wasn't there when when Tywin arrived. But Jaime was, and this is what he tells us.

ASoS, Jaime V

“Ned Stark was racing south with Robert’s van, but my father’s forces reached the city first. Pycelle convinced the king that his Warden of the West had come to defend him, so he opened the gates. The one time he should have heeded Varys, and he ignored him. My father had held back from the war, brooding on all the wrongs Aerys had done him and determined that House Lannister should be on the winning side. The Trident decided him.”

 

Jaime saying that Pycelle convinced the King to open the gates in no way proves that Tywin wasn't outside claiming loyalty. In fact, surely it would be out of character for the Mad King to act just on Pycelle's words alone?

Tywin's actions that day, and Robert's support of them, very nearly led to the end of Ned and Robert's friendship and almost directly led to the War of Five Kings. Whether Ned was present or not, I'm fairly confident he wasn't just wildly throwing allegations out there.

It's also interesting that Robert, who was defending the Lannisters, doesn't deny that they took King's Landing through treachery. He just says that the Targaryens had it coming. He tries to convince Ned to forgive Jaime for sitting on the Iron Throne after killing Aerys because "there was nowhere else to sit." Why wouldn't he attempt to convince Ned that Tywin didn't take King's Landing by treachery. It's not Tywin's fault that Aerys opened his gates after all. Why wouldn't Robert say that to Ned? I'd find it very hard to believe that Robert wouldn't know. Especially when Ned's been kicking off about it for years and years.

Incidentally, isn't Pycelle's involvement a secret? Tyrion didn't know about it until he had Pycelle arrested. Surely the official story isn't just that Aerys opened the gates because YOLO?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, UnFit Finlay said:

Incidentally, isn't Pycelle's involvement a secret? Tyrion didn't know about it until he had Pycelle arrested. Surely the official story isn't just that Aerys opened the gates because YOLO?

Yeah. I would guess Pycelle let Tywin know, so as to curry favour. He might also have let others, like Jon Arryn and Robert know, and spin it as an act of loyalty to them, but we don't know that. Ned shows no indication of being aware of it, and he would have almost definitely pondered it when wondering where Pycelle’s loyalties lay.

I get the impression that his role in the affair wouldn’t have been viewed in a good light, and he may have been tarred with a similar brush as Jaime. Maesters are sworn to give advice to their lords, not to set them up for being murdered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Yeah. I would guess Pycelle let Tywin know, so as to curry favour. He might also have let others, like Jon Arryn and Robert know, and spin it as an act of loyalty to them, but we don't know that. Ned shows no indication of being aware of it, and he would have almost definitely pondered it when wondering where Pycelle’s loyalties lay.

I get the impression that his role in the affair wouldn’t have been viewed in a good light, and he may have been tarred with a similar brush as Jaime. Maesters are sworn to give advice to their lords, not to set them up for being murdered.

Agreed.

We're miles off topic now but this has actually made me wonder whether that was the first time that Pycelle betrayed Aerys. If you search a World of Ice and Fire for him, almost all the results are related to Tywin. He's also a key source of information about how Aerys felt about Tywin. It wouldn't surprise me if he'd been giving Tywin information all along.

For example, we know that Aerys was paranoid about the Harrenhal tourney, and thought it was an excuse for his enemies to conspire against him. Pretty much the only major Lord not to attend was Tywin. In hindsight, it seems very likely that Pycelle warned him not to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, UnFit Finlay said:

We're miles off topic now but this has actually made me wonder whether that was the first time that Pycelle betrayed Aerys. If you search a World of Ice and Fire for him, almost all the results are related to Tywin. He's also a key source of information about how Aerys felt about Tywin. It wouldn't surprise me if he'd been giving Tywin information all along.

The World book suggests he aligned himself with Tywin early on when Tywin became Hand. I'd be very surprised that he wasn't working with him during the rebellion too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UnFit Finlay said:

Agreed.

We're miles off topic now but this has actually made me wonder whether that was the first time that Pycelle betrayed Aerys. If you search a World of Ice and Fire for him, almost all the results are related to Tywin. He's also a key source of information about how Aerys felt about Tywin. It wouldn't surprise me if he'd been giving Tywin information all along.

For example, we know that Aerys was paranoid about the Harrenhal tourney, and thought it was an excuse for his enemies to conspire against him. Pretty much the only major Lord not to attend was Tywin. In hindsight, it seems very likely that Pycelle warned him not to go.

Hoster Tully wasn't there either, at a tournament in his own lands.  I believe it is simply because Aerys shit on both of them by naming Jaime to the Kingsguard.  Hoster and Tywin were going to betroth Jaime to Lysa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, aryagonnakill#2 said:

Hoster Tully wasn't there either, at a tournament in his own lands.  I believe it is simply because Aerys shit on both of them by naming Jaime to the Kingsguard.  Hoster and Tywin were going to betroth Jaime to Lysa.

I'm iffy on this one. Jon Arryn and the Vale contingent is accounted for by Ned, but Meera doesn't mention them at all in the story she tells Bran. Mace Tyrell is named in her story, but he is not in Ned's. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2018 at 8:14 AM, Unacosamedarisa said:

Did Jon really do that? I thought Jon just sent Mance to collect the girl on the dying horse that Mel saw coming North. Jon knew nothing of Mance's plan to infiltrate Winterfell, I thought. 

Also, if you apply these ideas of "indirect guilt" then everyone is probably "guilty" of something horrendous. Arya saved Rorge and Biter (and Jaqen)... is she "guilty" of the destruction of Saltpans? 

Also, there's (probably) not an objective Judging Eye looking down on the world, and ticking boxes in regards to people's conduct. The notion of guilt and crime is subjective, and many in the North would likely argue this was no violation of Guest Right... The Boltons have no right to Winterfell, it's not their Home, therefore they cannot be Hosts at Winterfell, and guests have no obligation to them. The Bolton claim to the North is a lie, because Jeyne Poole is not Arya. Or, perhaps, Ramsey and Roose are criminals and traitors, for what they did in the sack of Winterfell and the Red Wedding, and the laws of hospitality do not apply to them. Or, Ramsey and Roose removed their own protections when they violated Guest Right themselves. 

Jon ordered Edd Tollette to fetch the wildlings from Mole's Town because they were needed for the disguise.  There would be no need to do that if the mission was limited to guiding Arya to Castle Black.  Jon gave Mance the order to bring him Arya.  Jon's intentions are to take her from Ramsay.   The fact that Mance carried out his mission is proof that he was working for Jon all throughout his time inside Winterfell.   Jon, as the man who ordered Mance to take Arya is responsible for the violation of guest rights.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Jon ordered Edd Tollette to fetch the wildlings from Mole's Town because they were needed for the disguise.  There would be no need to do that if the mission was limited to guiding Arya to Castle Black. 

Unless Mance argued that having some women with him would make Arya more likely to trust him, or he wanted some protection in the Wildling hating North, and thought it better to travel as a party mostly made up of women, rather than Wildling men who could be mistaken for raiders. In fact, the former is exactly how he sells it to Mel and Jon...

Quote

"I will need horses. Half a dozen good ones. And this is nothing I can do alone. Some of the spearwives penned up at Mole's Town should serve. Women would be best for this. The girl's more like to trust them, and they will help me carry off a certain ploy I have in mind."

Jon's response to this is "What?". It's not "Yeah, go to Winterfell and break Guest Right". 

Also, yes Edd got the women from Mole's Town. But, when Jon thinks about it, he thinks this... 

Quote

A grey girl on a dying horse, fleeing from her marriage. On the strength of those words he had loosed Mance Rayder and six spearwives on the north. "Young ones, and pretty," Mance had said. The unburnt king supplied some names, and Dolorous Edd had done the rest, smuggling them from Mole's Town. It seemed like madness now. He might have done better to strike down Mance the moment he revealed himself. Jon had a certain grudging admiration for the late King-Beyond-the-Wall, but the man was an oathbreaker and a turncloak. He had even less trust in Melisandre. Yet somehow here he was, pinning his hopes on them. All to save my sister. But the men of the Night's Watch have no sisters.

"A grey girl on a dying horse, fleeing from her marriage." No mention of infiltrating Winterfell and breaking Guest Right. 

Also, his other thoughts on the situation make it clear Jon had no idea about Mance infiltrating Winterfell. 

Quote

A grey girl on a dying horse. Melisandre's fires had not lied, it would seem. But what had become of Mance Rayder and his spearwives? 

Jon isn't thinking "What's Mance doing at Winterfell then?". He's confused, because he expected Mance to have found Arya next to a lake and brought her to Castle Black.

Quote

He wondered where Mance was now. Did he ever find you, little sister? Or were you just a ploy he used so I would set him free?

Again, he doesn't think "Mance is at Winterfell by now". 

Also, in the conversation with Mel and Mance, when Mance is revealed to him, the discussion centers around Arya being somewhere in the North of the North, around Long Lake. This is where Jon expects Mance to find Arya. Mance going to Winterfell is not what Jon expected him to do... hence Jon continually asking himself "where is Mance Rayder?".

Quote

Jon gave Mance the order to bring him Arya.

Yes, he sent him on that mission... wasn't exactly an order though. 

Quote

Jon's intentions are to take her from Ramsay.

No, Jon expects Mance to find Arya already fled from Ramsay, making her way North... A grey girl on a dying horse. 

Even then, you've still got the question of whether Jon is responsible for another's actions in this way. Jon didn't order Mance to do what he did, and clearly had no idea that Mance was going to go to Winterfell and be in a position to break Guest Right. And that's not even getting to the question of whether the Bolton's have any claim to the laws of hospitality, as Winterfell is not rightfully theirs, and Arya is a fake. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Jon, as the man who ordered Mance to take Arya is responsible for the violation of guest rights.  

And Daenerys as well: she was a guest at Astaport and she ordered the Unsullieds to kill their masters, who fed them, educated them, trained them and supplied them a job, all this free of charge!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that a guest can really violate guest rights to begin with, especially to people who aren't the host.  Guest right seems to refer more specifically to the host not harming his guests, that is the crux of the story of the Rat Cook.  But yeah, even assuming that guest right is a mutual contract which applies to both host and guest, Mance and his spearwives did not harm the host so I don't think they violated guest rights.

Plus, I mean c'mon, the Freys and Boltons complaining about guest right being violated...pot meet kettle :lol:.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems most here have a much broader definition on guest right than I do. I thought it was a reciprocal relationship solely between guest and host for protection, invoked by the guest eating the host's food under his roof. It's a sacred custom not legislation. 

If Ramsay feels wronged he, as the "lord", can make demands and try to enforce them, I don't wish him luck. Maybe, if Ramsay experiences hospitality issues, it's karma for not protecting his guests. How can Jon, Mel or Stannis be held responsible? I mean how can someone who is not even there be in breach of the custom? How do you extend the protection to someone who is not there? That's just a nonsensical argument. 

I really don't think the protection extends beyond the guest and host specifically. I think harm can happen with others, it's just avoided when at all possible so as not to force a confrontation between host and guest. Like when Hosteen cut Wyman, they were both guests and Roose as host ordered his men to stop the melee but, if a Bolton man or family member had initiated the bloodshed it would have been a different matter - depending. So how much latitude does the guest have to cause harm to the host's other guest, family members or retainers? Depends on the host I suppose, and the guest too for that matter.

Quote
  1. The dead man was found at the base of the inner wall, with his neck broken and only his left leg showing above the snow that had buried him during the night.
  2. The next morning Ser Aenys Frey's grizzled squire was found naked and dead of exposure in the old castle lichyard, his face so obscured by hoarfrost that he appeared to be wearing a mask.
  3. Then, before the day was done, a crossbowman sworn to the Flints turned up in the stables with a broken skull.
  4. The dead man was one of Ramsay’s favorites, the squat, scrofulous, ill-favored man-at-arms called Yellow Dick. Whether his dick had actually been yellow was hard to determine, as someone had sliced it off and stuffed it into his mouth so forcefully they had broken three of his teeth.
  5. The body in Ser Hosteen’s arms sparkled in the torchlight, armored in pink frost. The cold outside had frozen his blood. “My brother Merrett’s son.” Hosteen Frey lowered the body to the floor before the dais. “Butchered like a hog and shoved beneath a snowbank. A boy.”

Nope, not seeing anyone particularly protected, just men at arms. Nor any proof that Abel committed the murders himself, or Roose or Ramsay. The washerwomen might be responsible for some so that's on Mance. Call down the wrath of the gods if you wish. I haven't studied the murders to see them as anything other than superficially pointless but, at the least I'm sure there is an interesting narrative purpose.

What really has peaked my curiosity is Abel's status. Is he considered a guest? If so who's? Theon said he "was made welcome" but as what to who? I think a singer would be classified as a retainer instead of a guest and certainly not oath sworn. Is a retainer considered a guest? Probably should be but how can they be punished if so? We've seen lords, like Roose and Ramsay, harm men that work for them. No, I think guest right is reserved for an invited visitor not a travelling bard expecting pay.

If Abel is a guest he could just as easily be Wyman's, since they joined his musicians, Abel would have to answer to Wyman for any trouble. Then there is the whole thing about the Manderly party bringing all the food and drinks and, we've seen how strictly Wyman follows the laws of hospitality, it could mean there is no protection since the host did not provide the food. I know it's quibbling over details when were talking about murder but, the OP is concerning the unclear specifics of a custom.

Finally, concerning taking a woman from a host, I only recall three conflicting instances from the text. Bael the Bard, a singer at Winterfell stole the lords daughter even though the Free Folk are known to follow guest right. Was the bard considered a guest? Are daughters protected under guest right? Did Bael even care if he broke custom?

Then when Gilly asked Jon to take her with them - "Black brothers are sworn never to take wives, don't you know that? And we're guests in your father's hall besides."  "Not you," she said. "I watched. You never ate at his board, nor slept by his fire. He never gave you guest-right, so you're not bound to him. It's for the baby I have to go." - it involves wildlings again. Maybe a guest really can't take a wife under the laws of hospitality or, maybe Jon was using that as an excuse not to cause trouble since Craster would kill anyone who tried, guest or not. For me it's just as suggestive either way. Maybe it was because of the baby? Maybe a wife is off limits but female relatives are fair game? Depends, I suppose. I do find the "bound" part interesting, what are the terms?

Last is when Jon is protecting Alys from Cregan - "You are no guest of mine. You came to the Wall without my leave, armed, to carry off your niece against her will. Lady Alys was given bread and salt. She is a guest. You are a prisoner." - I find the "against her will" to be very interesting. I do doubt that extends to someone's wife even if their betrothal status was in question. Even so it does show Jon feels he has a right to protect his female guest, even from a male family member. Depending, maybe a wife could seek protection. The Silent Sisters for instance or, just someone stronger or higher rank than who she wants protection from.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nowy Tends said:

And Daenerys as well: she was a guest at Astaport and she ordered the Unsullieds to kill their masters, who fed them, educated them, trained them and supplied them a job, all this free of charge!

Or Tyrion when he sent men to rescue Jaime.

 

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

Plus, I mean c'mon, the Freys and Boltons complaining about guest right being violated...pot meet kettle 

So, If Thief's car is stolen, he would be hypocrite for calling police

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kandrax said:

Or Tyrion when he sent men to rescue Jaime.

 

So, If Thief's car is stolen, he would be hypocrite for calling police

Yes. That doesn't mean it's necesarily right for someone to steal the thief's car; that would depend on the circumstances. But yes I would consider him a bit hypocritical if he then complained about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kandrax said:

So, If Thief's car is stolen, he would be hypocrite for calling police

Good, great that the thief's car is stolen. Maybe the thief will stop thieving.

For some odd reason people keep trying to compare the RW with what is happening at WF.

It’s not that complicated.

Lord Walder (for whatever his reasons)  invited a group of people into his castle under the guise of a wedding celebration with the intent to kill his guests.

Guest right is best described in a Davos chapter. He was a fearful stranger in an unknown place yet his host granted him safety for the night. Much like Mance did with Jon although Jon was actually a prisoner of Mance's.

A Dance with Dragons - Davos I        It was, though any stale crust would have tasted just as fine to Davos; it meant he was a guest here, for this one night at least. The lords of the Three Sisters had a black repute, and none more so than Godric Borrell, Lord of Sweetsister, Shield of Sisterton, Master of Breakwater Castle, and Keeper of the Night Lamp … but even robber lords and wreckers were bound by the ancient laws of hospitality. I will see the dawn, at least, Davos told himself. I have eaten of his bread and salt.

Mance broke no guest right.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2018 at 7:41 AM, Wolf's Bane said:

It is my opinion that Mance Rayder broke guest rights when he entered Winterfell and stole fArya from the Boltons. 

Jon Snow and Mellissandre convinced Mance Rayder to steal fArya Stark from her husband, Ramsay Bolton.

Mance lied and presented himself as a traveling entertainer (bard).

Mance and his women ate the food and drank the wine of their hosts, the Boltons.

They commit murder beneath the roof of their guests.  They murdered the Bolton serving men.  

They remove fArya from Winterfell, from her husband.

That's an egregious violation of guest rights.  That makes Mel and Jon indirectly guilt to the breaking of guest rights.

 

Dear Sir,

This is one of the reasons why I stabbed that bonehead.  He started a feud with Lord Ramsay and put all of us in danger.  To make matters worse, he was about to lead the wildlings to attack Roose Bolton.  

Be at ease sir.  It is my intention to send proof of his death to the Boltons and assure them that we have taken care of our internal problems.   Let Ramsay know that our crazed lord commander was the one who ordered the wildlings to take his wife and not any other member of the Watch.  It was Jon,who was responsible for Mance Rayder being in Winterfell.  

Sincerely,

Bowen Marsh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...